Early on, Choozoo remarks that since WWII the United States is 0-1-1 (no wins, 1 tie (Korea) and 1 loss (Vietnam)). Then, at the end, at the top of the mountain Highway tells Choozoo, "I guess we're not 0-1-1 anymore..."
Excuse me? The "48 Hours of Glory" in Grenada makes up for 58,209 names on the Vietnam Wall in Washington D.C.? I don't think any Marine would see it that way - certainly not a CMH recipient.
Its a movie.
share
True, the experience in Grenada pales in comparison to other military conflicts, but it was still a success. In some ways I think Gunny may have been saying this line sarcastically, though it has been some years since I've seen the film.
Does a bullet at Grenada make a Marine less dead than a bullet at Khe Sahn? War with bullets and explosions is the same if YOU are the one getting shot at and blowed up.
No Marine at Grenada looked around and said, "well, I guess these bullets aren't as deadly as the ones in Viet Nam so I'm safe."
You mean Ranger.
shareWell, in case you haven't paid attention lately, we haven't heard much nonsense from the Grenadians....
sharewere they ever a threat? and have you heard "much nonsense" from the vietnamese lately? what is your point?!?
What the $%*& is a Chinese Downhill?!?
I'd say that Cubans are/were a threat. That's who thwe US were fighting on Grenada.
In terms of scope of conflict, there's no comparison between VN and Grenda. However, Grenada was the end of a period of purgatory for the US military and the beginning of its rebirth.
America didn't "lose" in Vietnam. The U.S. military was NEVER beaten in the field, not even at tet. America was sold out by her politicians and media whores, just like she is being sold out now.
Let's just hope the military doesn't become the tool of a soon-to-be-inagurated totalitarian regime. Bush and the neocons laid the groundwork. Is the worst yet to come?
Well, I felt it more about them giving it to their superior officer, who were a prick...
shareyup, vietnam was NEVER a military defeat for us...
shareGrenada was a nice win, but not to equal what happened in Vietnam. Of course, I was a Cold War sailor on a submarine, so I guess I helped win that one.
Woulda sucked if the Jarheads failed in Grenada, though.
Heard at mealtime on my boat:
"What? Steak and lobster... AGAIN!"
No kidding. We ate great on a sub. I guess it's to make up for the fact that we ALL volunteered to go to sea on a ship that sank itself on purpose!!!!
I really am glad that I served under the same flag as our soldiers, marines, and airmen. We played well on the same team!
[deleted]
um, sorry man but america did lose in vietnam. the same way the british lost the american revolution. these were people who were under french colocnial rule and wanted to overthrow that and establish a democracy. the us took over for france in trying to suppress democracy and they supported the dictatorship of south vietnam. the had every possible military advantage and fought desperatly for more than a decade trying to stop the communists from taking over. eventually, they gave up and left with their tails between their legs and the communists immediately took over. i'd say that's a loss.
shareThat's funny. I don't remember the US surrendering in Vietnam. The British did surrender in the revolution.
sharegee i guess not. they just left once they realised they could not win. heroic?
shareEgad. I think you both ought to read some history books.
Neither the US in Vietnam, nor the British in the American Revolutionary War, "surrendered." They both made conditional peace with their enemies. One of the conditions that the British accepted was the independence of their former colony; the conditions that the Americans accepted were far more favorable.
I am curious, Andrewrrr, as to how the US lost in Vietnam; specifically, what victory objectives did the US fail to achieve? What was their goal in Vietnam?
how about preventing the country from becoming communist? of course they did devestate these people so terribly, it did sent the message that genocide awaits anyone who wants communism so its probably not worth it.
shareHow about preventing the country from becoming communist due to a communist insurgency? In 1965, the idea that a sovereign country would invade South Vietnam was preposterous. While it was an open secret that North Vietnam funneled supplies and encouraged volunteers to succor the Viet Minh, it was not reasonable for North Vietnam to expect to be able to conduct a conventional invasion with regular forces and not elicit a UN response, akin to what North Korea did in 1950.
And in that respect, they succeeded. They stabilized the wavering Saigon government, strengthened South Vietnamese armed forces, and utterly defeated the Viet Cong by the time maneuver forces left in 1973.
But was there any strategic value in defending South Vietnam from without indefinitely? After the strategic value was gone, it makes sense that the US would withdraw. And after they withdrew, if another sovereign nation attempted to invade, the US would have to make a decision as to whether it was strategically worth it to re-engage. In 1975, it was not worth it.
But in 1965, their engagement was worth it -- as a demonstration to other regional nations dealing with communist threats, that the US was willing to provide the same level of outside support that those communists were receiving from China and USSR. Over the course of eight years of fighting in Vietnam, the US shored up anti-communist strength in areas of far more strategic value -- most notably, Indonesia.
I know it's minor, but one of my greatest pet peeves is when someone calls the Medal of Honor, the "Congressional" Medal of Honor. There is no such medal. There are the different services, AF, Army and Navy Medal of Honors, not Congressional.
shareThank You Jackal, I agree with you. I hate it when people talk about the CMH.
I'm guessing congressmen like having that word on there because they authorize the president to give it out, is that correct?
---
"24 hours a day, 7 days a week. No job is too big. No fee is too big!", Ghostbusters